Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · September 21, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Judge-specific sensitivity is useful for aggregating pairwise LLM evaluations, but its interpretation depends on which systematic presentation effects the ranking model includes. We introduce OSCAR, an order-aware framework for scoring and calibrating AI rankings, and study position as one such effect. In released judgments from 18 evaluators, the all-response A-minus-B score difference ranges from $-63.11$ to $98.31$ percentage points. Matching question text, response texts, candidate identities, and judge within the released table gives an overall difference of $24.22$ points (95% interval $[22.90,25.54]$), conditional on the released text mapping. A controlled calculation isolates the potential consequence: with true sensitivity fixed at one, omitting a position intercept of four reduces the population-optimal slope to $0.0771$. We extend sensitivity-based ranking with judge-specific position, length, and family terms, characterize local omission-induced displacement and an identification failure, and propagate prompt-cluster uncertainty to adjusted comparisons. Across four released datasets, position provides the largest stand-alone predictive improvement. Refitting bootstrap comparisons show more selective gains from the full model over position-only adjustment. In dependent binary simulations, adjusting both the mean and covariance yields 94.4--95.2% coverage; correcting either alone is insufficient. At $N=10{,}000$, OSCAR reduces mean neutral-target RMSE from $0.1158$ under the sensitivity-only model to $0.0237$.